PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 16
Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on the grounds(61 more words not shown)
The assertion that it is(25 more words not shown)
- AIt supports the(18 more words not shown)
- BIt supports the(11 more words not shown)
- CIt is implied(9 more words not shown)
- DIt supports the(18 more words not shown)
- EIt describes a(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would a clone necessarily live only to satisfy someone else's vanity? Imagine a much younger copy growing up with a life and ambitions of their own. I wouldn't simply assume how that person's life would unfold. But the ethicist's reply takes another route: people can already use others to serve their ambitions without cloning anyone.
The example is a parent pushing a child toward academic or athletic success. That could raise its own moral questions. Pointing out that it happens doesn't automatically make it good. What the passage adds is that using someone as a vehicle for another person's ambitions isn't illegal.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what that legal claim does in the argument. Start with the contrast: the opponents cite vanity to support a ban, while the ethicist points to the same kind of motivation in conduct that isn't banned. The claim is doing supporting work in that response. My initial description would be a premise showing that this concern isn't unique to cloning. Now we need an answer that identifies the point it supports.
Working the answers
- A
The ethicist doesn't compare how much society values individuality with what opponents believe society values. Parents' ambitions might interfere with a child's individuality, but that possible concern isn't the stated conclusion. A identifies a supporting role and then attaches it to a view the ethicist never expresses.
- B
Not illegal doesn't mean not objectionable. The parent example could be ethically troubling even if the conduct weren't prohibited. The ethicist isn't trying to prove that forcing children toward academic success is good or unobjectionable. B gives the legal claim a conclusion it doesn't support here.
- C
The ethicist doesn't state a conviction that clones are not subpeople and then derive the legal claim from it. The passage reports that characterization as part of the opponents' concern. The claim about legality instead helps answer their argument for a ban; it isn't presented as a consequence of a view about clones' status.
- DCorrect
Read the limit carefully: vanity is not enough of a reason to ban cloning. That is different from saying cloning should never be banned. The ethicist can challenge this particular justification while leaving other possible reasons undecided.
This makes the supporting role more precise than my initial description. If using a person to serve someone else's ambitions is allowed in the parent example, merely pointing to a similar motivation in cloning doesn't, in the ethicist's view, settle the case for a ban. The legal observation supports that limited response to the opponents. We don't have to accept the response as conclusive to identify what the observation is meant to do.
- E
The ethicist doesn't recommend changing the legal position described. There is no conclusion that parents should be forbidden from using children to pursue their ambitions. E turns a premise used in the cloning debate into a separate proposed legal reform.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.